Re: [MLS] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the ping. As I didn't receive any reply to my comments or
discuss, I was not aware of the plans and resolutions. I will have a look,
however, if you can point me on how my discussion point is addressed it
will help me to do a fast response.

//Zahed

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 8:42 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Zahed,
>
> Hi! A new version has dropped (actually I think two since your ballot
> position was entered) and I was hoping you could take a quick peek to see
> if this version addresses you discuss points; one at least is addressed as
> Roman has withdrawn his DISCUSS.
>
> Cheers,
> spt
>
> > On Feb 1, 2023, at 11:15, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-architecture/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for working on this specification.
> >
> > After reading section 7, I would like to discuss why there is no explicit
> > recommendation of using secure transport for MLS. This section and
> subsections
> > point out various strong opinions to use secure transport. I there is any
> > particular reason to support secure transport protocol then it should be
> > mentioned. I kind of feel that the work "transport" here does not really
> only
> > refer to Layer 4 transport protocols, needs some clarification.
> >
> > I also support Roman's discuss that the recommendation on section
> 7.4.3.2 and
> > section 7.1.2 are countering each other.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - It took time for me to understand that the recommendation in section
> 7.1.4
> > refers to different set of transport protocols than those examples
> mentioned in
> > beginning of section 7.1 :-), yes, I did not took the "unidirectional"
> word
> > seriously. However, I think some clarification and/or reference to some
> FEC
> > scheme for unidirectional transport here would be good.
> >
> >
> >
>
>